Let's consider the words of Peter Lumpkins, Vice President of Communications for Brewton Parker College, @SBC_Tomorrow
1) Peter Lumpkins, like his employer and boss, has never formally debated a Muslim. Anywhere. Maybe he would like to comment on his boss' claims in this matter, even to the point of quoting Dr. Shabir Ally, when he has not, in fact, ever MET Dr. Ally? Until Lumpkins has the honesty to admit the basic facts of this situation, his continued commentary on it is the height of hubris and the depth of dishonesty.
2) The issue of honesty and integrity in the handling of theological and historical material is front and center in doing Islamic apologetics. Watch, for example, the sharp exchange between Shabir Ally and myself from the University of Pretoria on the subject of the earliest witnesses to the deity of Christ in the New Testament writings. Handling historical facts and claims dishonestly is part of what we must discuss---the accusation of tahrif al-nass, for example, on the part of Muslims, or our own assertion that the author of the Qur'an was ignorant of Christian beliefs, and ignorant of the text of the New Testament. Hence, the willingness of Christian leaders to "cover up" the lies of Peter's employer becomes very relevant to the Muslim mind, because it reminds him of what he has been taught regarding the words of the Qur'an,
فَوَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَٰذَا مِنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ لِيَشْتَرُوا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
(I will let Peter's boss translate that for him, since, of course, he claimed to be able to do so many times, documented in audio and video sources, another issue Dr. Lumpkins should honestly address).
3) Lumpkins' statement that I am "slammed" by Muslims "IF NOT MORE" than Dr. Lumpkins' boss is so laughable it is hard to imagine the effort it must take to engage in such deception. Remember, this man is paid to write this stuff, in defense of a man who claimed to do more than sixty debates with Muslims around the world, and yet...did none, and yet he has the temerity to write such words in defense of shameless deception? "Out of the abundance of the heart"
4) Lumpkin's second paragraph is nigh unto incoherent. In the futile attempt to defend the indefensible he not only plays the "Calvinism" card (clearly intended to fog the minds of those suffering from anti-Calvinist derangement syndrome), but he basically tells us that we can't know what repentance would even look like! In the case of Lumpkins' boss, repentance would NOT be taking to Twitter proclaiming himself utterly innocent, exonerated, etc. It would involve, in his own words, "public sin, public confession." Hence, an open admission of his many lies, his self-enrichment through those lies, and his dishonoring of the pulpit, and the gospel, by those actions. It would involve apologies to the churches he deceived, and to the Muslims about whom he lied. I won't even get into the idea that true repentance and confession would likewise involve asking forgiveness from the many he has slandered and libeled who did nothing more than seek to have the truth vindicated in the face of his falsehoods.
5) The next paragraph is likewise nigh unto incoherent. In presenting the honor and sanctity of the Christian ministry the duty of the minister to speak the truth, to refrain from self-promotion and lying and deception, is absolutely necessary. To attempt to distract from his employer's utter disregard of these duties through his blatant falsehoods, not once, not twice, but repeatedly, for years, through the promulgation of this kind of empty rhetoric, is, once again, beyond reprehensible. But remember, Dr. Lumpkins is a hireling. He is paid to write this stuff. "Out of the abundance of the heart"
6) I would like to ask Dr. Lumpkins to provide us with this "other interpretation" of the words and actions of his employer. Just what is this other, evidently equally valid, interpretation? We've been asking for a long time. Simply assuming it exists, without offering it, will not do. Let's hear a coherent, consistent, "takes all the facts in their original context and does them justice as they relate to one another" interpretation. Lumpkins knows there is no such interpretation, nor has anyone offered it. Instead, excuses have been offered, piecemeal, but never a coherent, full-orbed story. Those excuses, such as found in the infamous "Geisler Excuse Sheet," have been thoroughly torn to shreds, at least in the mind of any semi-honest investigator of the facts.
7) Finally, as I told others it would happen, Lumpkins has the gall, being the one who is using tragedy as a baseball bat, dishonoring the dead in a despicable fashion, to accuse ME of doing what he well knows he is purposefully doing himself. I asked that everyone give the family time to grieve---who has refused to honor this request? Who created a story out of whole clothe so as to attack Lumpkins' boss' critics? Who has been putting out "cyber-bullying" memes and accusations? Lumpkins well knows what he is doing, and I cannot imagine what it is like for him to try to live with himself. And for what? Money? Prestige? Nothing could be worth the cost of such actions.
Peter Lumpkins needs to shut up. Turn off the attack machine. The period of shock will wear off soon. Real grieving does not begin its process for a number of weeks, and reaches a real crescendo three, four months down the road. And in complicated situations, it might take even longer. I would like to think Lumpkins actually likes his boss. If he does, then he needs to pull the plug on his "don't let a good crisis go to waste" Chicago politics mentality and think things through. He doesn't care who he is damaging, what kind of lies and falsehood he is spinning---but maybe he needs to realize he could be doing irreparable damage a whole lot closer to home than he thinks?